Skip to main content

About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
of all the games going on and there are you, grover norquist, a very bright guy still resolutely saying a pledge is a pledge is a pledge, it cannot be broken when many of your own party are now saying you know, what it doesn't make sense to have this irresolute position anymore. >> two things, the pledge is not for life. but everybody who signed the pledge, including peter king, who tried to weasel out of it -- shame on him as the "new york sun" says tonight. i hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years or something. >> whoa, hang on, hang on. that was a bit below the belt, grover. >> hey, if you think a commitment is not for as long as you make it for, the commitment for the pledge as peter king well knows when he signed it is as long as you're in congress you will rein in spending and reform government, not raise taxes. it's not for 500 years or two generations. it's only as long as you're in the house or the senate. if he stayed too long, that's his problem. but you don't tell the bank, oh, the mortgage, wasn't that long time ago? if you make a commitme
-- quote from another player -- that is from culver norquist. -- grover norquist. he is suggesting that the gop's negotiating position in the fiscal debate is stronger than being reported. that is at grover norquist for you. others have weighed in as well -- as well. here is "the new york times" -- james in oklahoma, a democratic caller. what is your take? caller: my question is, who is running this country? is it the president, the congress, or is it the american people? the american people break the back to survive on a daily basis. congress does not have that problem. i may not get to eat just because to feed -- just to feed my kids. congress does not have that problem. they do not share the problems. they do not care about our problems. all as long as they get with it and what they got. thank you. host: alex in georgia, republican color. -- caller. caller: happy new year to everybody. i think it is a win, ironically, for republicans. i think anybody of any common- sense realizes -- i will even say you are going to say $300,000 and above, even for household, that is at the chair
one person's opinion carries disproportionate weight and that person is grover norquist. he's the head of americans for tax reform. they have got the pledge that mostly republican members of congress signed to say they won't increase taxes. now, understand this. the top marginal tax rate going from 35% to 39.6% is not a tax increase. it is a return to tax rates that would have taken place after the temporary bush tax cuts expired and got extended. so the way i see it, that cuts with designed to be temporary, but clearly norquist disagrees with me. >> let's say we let the bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and then congress moved to increase tax rates. would that count? would that violate your pledge? >> that would clearly be -- look, you can't go to the american people and say we raised taxes $500 billion and then we cut it $400 billion, please only look at the cut, not the overall rate. if you raise taxes $100 billion on the american people, they're going to notice it. it doesn't pass the laugh test. >> now, people say he's just one guy. grover likes to say the pledge isn't t
. both times, boehner could not deliver because they refused because of grover norquist to allow any tax revenues whatsoever. we had meetings with the vice president, biden and cantor. cantor walked out of those meetings. he is the majority leader in the house. we had the gang of six, the gang of eight. we had this super committee, and they were doing good things, good things, dealing with entitlements and revenues. and a week before they were to report, buy virtue of statute, i get a letter signed by virtually every republican, too bad about the super committee, we're not going to do anything with revenues. so this is not a capsule of a couple of days. this has been going on for years. they cannot cross over the threshold that has been built by grover norquist. people who are rich, who make a lot of money, they are not opposing raising the taxes on them. the only people in america who don't think taxes should be raised on the rich are the republicans who work in this building. so any time the speaker and the republican leader come to the president and say we have got a deal for you, the
to the right of rick santorum. he took the grover norquist pledge. he did all the things that were required of a potential republican nominee. but in each of those steps, he made it harder for him to win a general election. and he brought to this some strengths. the other thing that will the president four years ago was that romney was the likely nominee because i believe in the theory of opposites. whoever the incumbent is, people are looking for the brevity, not the replica. and romney would represent a stark difference from obama, a businessman, grounded, not a visionary, not an order for. >> so you thought he would be the nominee. you thought that through the whole entire primary process? >> i had a few moments of doubt, as i suspect he may have. but he got to those moments was to do what i said, to move to the right. with each step, i think he made himself more vulnerable. in the abstract, his profile as a businessman will stay positive, even until the final day. it was the concept of a businessman who knows how to create jobs and so on. that was their message and that was not a bad me
't think said people exist in the republican party. listen, the answer is grover norquist no new tax pledge. that alone would free the republican party to engage in good faith, sensitive negotiations. everybody knows that our taxes are now at an historic low in the contemporary era and they're going to go out sort of naturally. and with the aging of the population, i guarantee you will be somewhere around 22% gdp. wouldn't it be nice if we could acknowledge that and say what's the most bowl, efficient way to structure a tax system, probably progressive consumption tax direct it in ways to accomplish a whole host of object is. as long as you have that pledge to which members signed, it's hopeless. the republican party cannot be a player in any constructive resolution of the problems confronting the country. there is no political space for a third-party to occupy. it's based on a presumption. we have two extreme parties and there's this great center to mobilize and i'm deeply skeptical that there's room for such a party and would really play a constructive role. is it going to get worse than
allegiance to this grover norquist fellow. did they not realize that you have to have taxes to pay for these two wars that the republicans -- that was george w. bush who was in charge that time -- they started these wars. and yet, they are saying we have to control the spending. the spending is on these wars. so, let congress take a pay cut of about 35%, and take any revenue the dead and take that revenue and put it towards the debt to pay down our debt. our debt is caused by wars, not by social security, not by medicare. we people who work out here, we pay into social security. we pay into medicare. so, let them take a pay cut. if they want to start cutting everybody, how about congress taking a pay cut? thank you for taking my call. host: christian, your message to washington on this deadline day, about 9 1/2 hours before we reached the midline -- the midnight deadline. caller: i do not think we should now go over the fiscal cliff, and i do not think it is responsible whether you are republican or democrat. i think both parties should unite and work for all americans. it is not o
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)